Craig Hudson

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his disposition.

The accused brought motions arguing the Board lost jurisdiction due to delay and alleging bias and misconduct by the clinical team and Board members.

The Board dismissed the motions, finding the delays were necessary to protect the accused's rights and the other issues were beyond its jurisdiction or previously decided.

On the merits, the Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to untreated schizophrenia and ongoing paranoid ideation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at a high secure facility.

The appellant, Jerome Williams, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision ordering his continued detention in the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs Division at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

Williams argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge, or alternatively, a transfer to a medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and the necessity of continued detention at Waypoint were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly in light of ongoing concerns about medication compliance and substance use.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic fentanyl and methamphetamine over a two-week period in October 2017.

The court found the accused was the directing mind and principal actor in a large drug trafficking conspiracy in Waterloo Region.

The accused possessed approximately three kilograms of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for distribution.

The court imposed a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment on the fentanyl conspiracy count, with a concurrent five-year sentence on the methamphetamine count, after crediting three years time served.

The court emphasized the severity of fentanyl trafficking and its devastating impact on the community.

Two accused were sentenced for trafficking in dangerous controlled substances, including Carfentanil, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine.

The offences were discovered through Project Variance, a wiretap investigation by Waterloo Regional Police Service.

Substantial quantities of drugs and cash were seized from both their residence and a trailer.

Both accused entered guilty pleas to multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a sentence of 10 to 13 years was appropriate.

The court imposed sentences reflecting the serious nature of trafficking in highly potent opioids, the commercial scale of the operation, and the devastating community impact of the opioid crisis, while recognizing the significant mitigating value of early guilty pleas.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for trafficking, possession of heroin for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone for trafficking, possession of cannabis for trafficking, possession of hashish for trafficking, and possession of hashish oil for trafficking, as well as failing to comply with a probation order.

The Crown conceded counts 1 and 3.

The central issues were whether the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant, whether the strip search was conducted lawfully, and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the Charter.

The court found that while the police had reasonable grounds to arrest and the strip search was justified, it was not conducted in a reasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence from the strip search was excluded.

The defendant was convicted of the included offences of simple possession of marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil, and failing to comply with probation.